Recent Food Recalls - First the Canteloupe, now ground beef

...
So yes, local and sustainable could feed us all.

That depends on your definition of "us" Certainly, it could feed all of us rich Westerners who only spend 2-5% of our income on food. Asia, Africa, South American would starve - were starving - before modern agriculture was introduced. This isn't conjecture or some pie-in-the-sky idealism. People, children, were dying because they didn't have enough to eat... then they weren't because they STOPPED using traditional agriculture and doubled or tripled their food output from one year to the next.

Read the wiki article I linked.

...
Wiki articles are not credible.

Seriously? You're just burying your head in the sand now.

Besides, as someone else has stated, most of the people that are starving in other countries is due to political reasons, not because there is no food.

You're just flat-out wrong about this, but if you're not willing to even consider evidence that conflicts with your beliefs, I don't know what else to say. Political problems prevent trade and relief food from relieving hardships. They prevent food produced here in American's midwest (with modern agriculture) from getting where it's needed. Politics (excepting actual war) isn't stopping people from growing their own food. They're still doing that; they're just not producing enough to feed themselves until modern ag techniques are introduced. That scientist I linked (who you refuse to read about) helped stop the Ethiopian famine in the 80's. Remember "We Are the World?" They did nothing compared to Norman's foundation which helped TRIPLE local food production.

If everyone started buy meats locally and buying into CSA memberships, more of these farms would pop up in the area and this would happen all over the country and we would not be relying on these factory farms that are supposed to be supplying us with safe foods and thus food borne illnesses would dramatically cut out and go down.

Fantasyland.

I bet you think you're "close" to your food, but it's obvious that you have no real idea how much acreage is required to feed a person for a year. As an example, if you ate nothing all year but corn the average Iowa acre could feed 30 people using modern techniques. In 1930, with tractors and inorganic fertilzers that same acre fed about 5 people. Take those away to simulate the 3rd world and we're down to 2 people per acre. Fresh vegetables and meats take a lot more space than that. With almost 7 billion people in the world now, there's barely enough arable land physically on the surface of the planet to feed everyone - even using modern methods. Going back to traditional methods would force us to cull about half the world's population.

I'm going to stop giving factual arguments because I don't really think you're listening to them anyway..maybe somebody else is.

Look, I'm not saying it's not better for you or me to eat the way you've been talking about if you prefer it. It tastes better, it's fresher, cleaner, lower carbon footprint, whatever you like about it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that traditionally farmed food is somehow morally "better" or in fact even possible for the majority of the planet. A too-large percentage of the world is still worrying about going to bed hungry to be bothered about where or how some food was produced. Being able to indulge preferences like yours for local, traditional foods is one of the benefits of living in a wealthy society. Accept and embrace that and stop trying to assign a moral superiority to what is nothing more than personal preference . Most of the world can't afford that preference.